Otherwise any kind of digital art, font, or iconography is a 'fake image'. Or why draw the line at digital, surely pictures too - the Mona Lisa is 'fake' because it was merely created to look like a person.
An art dealer approached Picasso to authenticate some drawings. "All fake!", says Picasso.
A friend who watched this was skeptical -- the drawings looked real to him. So, on the sly, he gave the dealer one of his own Picasso drawings and had him come back.
"Fake!", says Picasso.
"But Pablo... I saw you draw that. You gave it to me with your own hands."
"Bah. Anyone can do a fake Picasso. I often do them myself."
Instead, you take the two words you want to put together to mean whatever you want it to mean, and if the meaning is useful and people could figure it out, you're allowed to use it.
So, a fake X can be something that isn't really an X. Or it can be something that is really an X but fakeness is involved in some other way.
For example, if you meet someone in a bar and ask for their number, and then when you later call them, some totally different person answers, you've been given a fake phone number. The number itself isn't fake. It's a valid number that works fine for placing phone calls. The fakeness is in who the number belongs to.
A fake person isn't a being who isn't really a person. It's a person who exhibits fake behavior.
A fake voice isn't a sound that wasn't produced by a human vocal tract. It's a voice that is produced by a human vocal tract but it isn't their normal voice. The fakeness is that it intentionally sounds different from their normal voice.
Right, it just doesn't convey that meaning to me, it jarrs. Of course I understand the intent, I just mean that it's not immediately clear, not without making me think 'that's not quite right'.
To be clear, I don't take issue with 'fake', it's its attachment to 'image' that bothers me. 'fake photo' or 'photorealistic CGI' seems fine, more reflective even of the concern people have - few people have a problem with computers generating images at all, it's when the authenticity of the source or subject is doubted or potentially falsified that's controversial.
Just wait until you find out about "La Trahison des Images".
They're an image, but they are not what they claim to be an image of.